I guess it depends on what you're building. For me the graphql is one of the most useful features. I've only used Next a little, but much prefer Gatsby. I don't think Next is bad though.
I'm not sure how long ago you tried Gatsby, but TypeScript doesn't require setup anymore. Just change the file extensions to .tsx/.ts and it works. It also does incremental builds.
Gatsby handles pages in src/pages the same way except it doesn't use placeholders in the filenames. You generate dynamic pages by writing a function. Check out these videos.
Do you think that Wikipedia doesn't want traffic? When people land on Wikipedia it creates brand recognition and the opportunity for them to ask for support from those visitors, which is what keeps Wikipedia going. Some of those users will edit pages while they are there.
What Google is doing is terrible, especially for smaller sites. Those sites depend on traffic to survive.
AMP makes things even worse, because now the visitors never actually go to the website's own independent servers, even if "the content" loads, and Google dictates how the sites have to be built. Web publishers are in the process of losing control of their websites and independence.
I'm not sure what it has to do with breaking up Google. I'm just saying that they are leading users to think that Google will stop tracking them if they turn on Google's private browsing mode.
The average user doesn't know what private browsing really mode means. If Google says you are in private browsing mode and that some other "websites and ISPs" might still track you, they aren't being clear that Google itself is still knowingly tracking you.
I think that would be a disingenuous argument from Google. Google is directly receiving the analytics data and then feeding only a portion of it to the website. They know that users are easily confused and don't fully understand that one Google product doesn't respect another Google product's "privacy" settings. Most of them probably don't even know what Google Analytics is or how Google makes money by tracking them.
Google is a company. Their tracking code isn't a website. It doesn't mention to users that that their private browsing mode doesn't actually protect users from their other products.
Google is not the ambiguous other "websites and ISPs." They are the ones making the claim that you are in private mode with a Google product, even though you aren't.
Users don't know how things work. They read that as if Google is respecting privacy, not tracking everything they do.
It's hard to make that argument when you control the browsing device that tells users that they are in private mode, but then identify specific devices and users from the other end of the network with your other product.